Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 523163 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2422 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:09:23 PM »

What I see around the world are what I call "PR moves", countries cutting CO2 emissions by 2% a year, maybe, if that. Some claim higher figures but when you check into it it's because they are buying power from neighbors. Why should anyone think this is going to change, radically, and soon?

Maybe the US elects a Democrat. Maybe he has grand plans. Maybe. And then Congress gets a say. Every new administration has grand plans, and when we look back, in the main, we see little really was changed, in ANY endeavor. We had Obama for eight years and what grand plan was implemented? Some regulatory adjustments.

In Europe I see the same kind of PR campaign. Talk up wind and solar and mask the hard numbers. China of course is the Big Player here, and they often claim so many kW from solar etc., but hard reality is below:

They aren't reducing CO2 emissions, and won't in the future, aside from the impact of the virus.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2423 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:10:44 PM »

we're ALL Doomed

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2424 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:25:40 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 11, 2020, 02:21:33 PM

I sincerely hope nobody believes that the CCP is producing renewable energy out of their concern for emissions - because they don't care. They are doing it for their own energy security - period. And they also have 4.5 times more people than we do, so, they produce a bit more renewable as a percentage, and they produce far more emissions. India and China have 35 percent of the world population.

Again, start there if you want to truly make a dent in emissions.

I've already said this before, but...

in 2019, India had less than half of US emissions. China has almost double our emissions, but had no increases in 2019 and should be seeing decreased CO2 output for the foreseeable future.

They are doing their part. We are not doing ours. We are the 2nd largest producer of CO2 in the world. We can certainly make a dent.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2425 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:27:16 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 02:36:31 PM

One irony in all this is that Europe decided to push Diesel cars circa 1990 to combat CO2 emissions, and as a result are incurring serious problems with regular air pollution now (NOx in particular) in cities. Nearly every car is Diesel, and the 50 cc 2 stroke scooters are a problem of course.

I saw somewhere that CO2 emissions are off 8% due to COVID and we'd need to replicate that every tear for ten years to meet Paris targets, which as noted above, are not sufficient. Even the most optimistic rosey future scenario not based on wishful thinking shows "we" are not doing nearly enough.

If nobody can do some kind of cost:benefit analysis on the issue, well, that should tell us something.

The insurance industry already has. And not just them.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2426 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:32:10 PM »

The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO₂ emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.

https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019

The US is making more progress than a lot of countries out there.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2427 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:32:54 PM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on May 11, 2020, 03:27:16 PM

The insurance industry already has. And not just them.

Where? I don't see anything. Burfle.

Cost of reducing CO2 emissions.

Benefit of reducing CO2 emissions.

Where is it?

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2428 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:33:09 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 03:03:37 PM

A decade ago, Germany's plan to move to renewable energy positioned the country as a pioneer in the fight against climate change. But its climate protection efforts have stalled, and Germany is still a major contributor to global CO2 emissions.
Read more: COP 25: When it comes to climate protection, Germany still has a lot to do
Fossil fuels make up 80% of Germany's primary energy consumption, according to government data. Some 22% of that comes from coal. The country relies on black coal and lignite to maintain a steady energy supply alongside fluctuating renewables.

This is all well and good, but you're cherry picking data that makes your case.

Sure, Germany hasn't dropped as much as they wanted to...but per capita we still produce more than 75% CO2.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2429 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:35:10 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 03:32:54 PM

Where? I don't see anything. Burfle.

Cost of reducing CO2 emissions.

Benefit of reducing CO2 emissions.

Where is it?

How many links do you want?

Here's
Here's a bunch of scholarly articles, but a simple Google search will reveal more layman articles if you're interested.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2430 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:35:39 PM »

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm showing that what is happening is some slight chiseling of CO2 emissions, well under what would be needed. Public relations.

And the US is doing better than most at this.

Anyone who thinks the world is REALLY going to reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently by 2030 is looking at different data than I see.

I see PR, and a lot of people fall for it.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2431 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:36:48 PM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on May 11, 2020, 03:35:10 PM

How many links do you want?

Here's
Here's a bunch of scholarly articles, but a simple Google search will reveal more layman articles if you're interested.

One link, with ONE plan, that answers my questions. ONE will suffice.

I've never seen one anywhere, and I've looked pretty hard.

And maybe you hadn't realized but I'm not exactly a layman in my understanding of science.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2432 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:40:22 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 03:35:39 PM

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm showing that what is happening is some slight chiseling of CO2 emissions, well under what would be needed. Public relations.

And the US is doing better than most at this.

Anyone who thinks the world is REALLY going to reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently by 2030 is looking at different data than I see.

I see PR, and a lot of people fall for it.

This is exactly the point. We need to step up and do something.

This country put a man on the moon just a few decades after flying was invented. If we truly invest in it, we can certainly do it.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2433 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:42:17 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 03:36:48 PM

One link, with ONE plan, that answers my questions. ONE will suffice.

I've never seen one anywhere, and I've looked pretty hard.

And maybe you hadn't realized but I'm not exactly a layman in my understanding of science.

How many links do you want?

Here's one.
Here's one.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2434 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:44:56 PM »

I don't deal with what we CAN do, I worry about what is mostly likely to happen in the real world, as opposed to the Make Believe World.

I look at trends, versus Great Promises a decade ago. I look at what is feasible and practicable versus what has been happening for decades. I'm not impressed when somebody reduces their output by 1-2% a year when the models say it has to be 8-10%.

I try and find hard numbers, how much will this cost, and find nothing but airy fairy rosey burfle. I see the public not liking nuclear and wanting to shut that down. That not only takes an option off the table, it digs a hole in what needs to be done, as Germany if discovering.

Mostly I see political BS and PR. and I think it's clear we're going to run this experiment and find out what happens. The notion that the world is really going to cut CO2 emissions fast enough is simply not something I believe, at all.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2435 on:** May 11, 2020, 03:45:42 PM »

how many of the links with some sort of data do any of us really believe?

we know how this works

the writers have a story to tell (an agenda), they then use data to form and substantiate that narrative

just like this COVID-19 data, I'm not sure what to believe and how to interpret all the data

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment